2880-by-1800 resolution for the Macbook Pro, when will these kind of resolutions be coming to desktop displays?
I was wondering the same thing when I saw the announcement. I think a lot will depend on how quickly people buy these. If other manufacturers see them selling well, they may be inclined to produce higher resolution displays. I imagine we will first see them in the 30-inch IPS form factor. I except the product announcements should hit around January.
First of all - retina display equals IPS display. That puts it immediately even the smallest IPS displays with standard pixel density in 200€+ range. Secondly, we are talking about 90-110 ppi for normal displays vs 220ppi for this retina display. That means pretty much double pixels, which radically increases the product price due the higher fault rates (bad pixels). In the end, if it even shows up as standalone display, expect it to be priced around 1000€ for 24" 3840x2160 displays, if not more. I don't expect sub-400€ 24" displays with 200+ ppi before 2015.
The main problem is GPU power. Right now as we speak, a GTX 680 has trouble with some select (most demanding) games with a 27inch monitor. Something on the graphic card needs to change so that resolution increase doesn't affect as much as today solutions. NOW higher DPI monitors will be welcome. Also it has to do with demand. Now the consumer market wants 1080p. They are brain washed in thinking that if it's not 1080p.. you can't watch HD videos and you'll get "black lines" (even though you do in both cases), and that ruins the experience. Thanks Sony, and all supporters of HDMI and Blu-Ray.
What does HDMI and Blu Ray have to do with the price of string? 1080p is simply the current de facto standard used in broadcasting and home cinema, and the technology supports that - exactly as how DVDs supported SD resolutions, along with its pals composite and SCART. We have other display technologies that can scale, and were designed for exactly that (lookin' at you DisplayPort), which are slowly making headway. The home/consumer market will make that transition when 4K actually starts going mainstream and the demand is there. The computing market has very little to do with this - not exactly many of us use HDMI right now, it's all DVI/DP/MDP.
I am talking about computer sale. The problem that HDMI had was no better than dual-link DVI and an optical audio wire. They made HDMI for copy-protection system which DVI group was initially against. So they pushed HDMI like no tomorrow to the public, to a point that when I was working at retail store for several years, people didn't want 1920x1200 monitor, they wants "1080p" monitor. Despite we had better and the same price 1920x1200 monitors, they even looked nicer. Remember that back in the old days 16:10 was the defacto in computers, when wide screen came along. When I ask why to the client, the usual response I got was that "I can't play any movies or watch any videos if it's not 1080p certified." or something along that line. And I recall we even had Sony representative on the TV section saying this to costumers. I did complain to the manager and the manager was like, "If it makes people buy HDMI cables, new TV's and new computer, it's all good". Just disgusting. It's one thing pushing the standard on broadcast standard and it's another lying to a point that people believed that no video can't be played if it doesn't say 1080p, or think that movies and videos will look strange or wtv they believed that was false. Sony pushed this with their own computer monitor and laptops. Laptops has 16:10 aspect ratio.. Sony had 16:9. People where impressed with 16:9., and wanted this.
Read this... http://www.extremetech.com/computing/130605-where-are-all-the-high-resolution-desktop-displays
The main issue other than cost is that Windows has never been terribly good at GUI scaling. It has a half-hearted DPI scaling option built in but nothing to make a retina-style display viable. From what I remember reading though Windows 8 has much better support for high-DPI displays though, so hopefully the future will be a lot more promising. A retina-display i7 Asus Transformer Book would be worth selling a kidney for.
It's alright when you sell a single model of a highly in demand device with such high resolutions, like an iPad, iPhone or a new Mac Book Pro. Those devices are going to sell in the hundreds of thousands or more... and a lot of those on some sort of finance where the user isn't aware of the units cost. And yes, I can understand why people only want 1080p monitors... despite that according to Bit-tech, no one watches Blu-ray on their PC. I guess it's just Netflix, YouTube and the occasional gaming that draws the average joe, and they don't need the 22gazillion ppi.
LOL.. two identical threads running on this.... It's easy to for Apple (or anyone ) to release a high resolution 15" screen... but most people who aren't Appleholics will quickly realise that a 15" screen of that resolution is actually completely and utterly useless. Running everything at native res without scaling will result in text being so small it would be unreadable from normal laptop operating distances, so the OS will scale it larger... so in reality you'll have no more desktop real estate than you had on a "normal" resolution desktop... only difference is beautifully smooth edges to this upscaled content should be sit with the screen 5 inches from your face. These high res displays only become useful with much larger monitors, and even Apple aren't doing that due to cost. The high res desktop market is a few years off yet due to costs. The tech is there now, but it would come with a 4k price tag at least. Personally, I'd pay it, but I'm in a minority. So don't worry... Retina displays are a marketing gimmick at these small sizes, and just even more ridiculous at tablet and phone sized screens. You'd literally have to hold the device inches from your face to really appreciate where your money has gone. When 24" screens start to use these reslutions I'll sit up and listen.... or when 4K or higher hits 30" models.
so how will 1:1 photo editing work with retina display? wouldn't that just mean less zoomed in, which in turn mean harder to pick out the details?
The kicker is that Apple's new "retina display" (oh, how I'm sick of that phrase) only actually displays 1440x900 pixels. At least at the default setting. Right now there's not even a way to switch to a mode where you can actually use the full 2880x1800 pixels. Not that there's any reason to, just as there's practically no reason for such a high resolution on such a small display anyway.
There is hope: -via dpreview.com As mentioned, it really does not make too much sense to have this much resolution on such a small screen. As for getting 1:1 photo editing.. probably not going to happen ever. If you look at the new Nikon D800, the max image resolution is 7360 x 4912. The lowest image resolution is 2400 x 1600, which has only been achieved on this 'Retina' display. Either way, camera sensor resolution will always outpace monitor resolution since you need to be able to create the content before you figure out how to view it.
1:1 photo editing is possible on lower resolution screens merely by looking at a smaller part of the image surely? The point wuyanxu was making was that at 1:1 everything would be tiny, and therefore would make editing a nightmare (atleast that's what I thought he was meaning)
4k displays for your average joe are a long way away 2015 if your willing to spend £1000 more like 2020 before they in £1-200 range that most spend on there monitor from pc world.
